"Today Our attention is directed to one of the most common of them (abuses), one of the most difficult to eradicate, and the existence of which is sometimes to be deplored in places where everything else is deserving of the highest praise; the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendor and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers. Such is the abuse affecting sacred chant and music."- St. Pius X, Pope

Sunday, 23 July 2017

Moving beyond the term "papolatry" to the realisation of the subversive element

I've used the term "papolatry," as have others, to describe the almost idolatrous nature of the treatment of the current Bishop of Rome and his sycophants promotion of his every word and breath being from his "god of surprises." We see it in the case of priests on Twitter, the Vatican's own press (more on that tomorrow), and people such as Austin Ivereigh, parroting every word of Bergoglio's as if it was the new divine revelation and we are too stupid to get with the party. The word, papolatry, is of Protestant origin and used as a smear on Catholicism. The point of using it, at least on my part, is to show how we have ascribe to the pope that which the Protestants have accused us of doing.A reader, Mr. Benjamin Van Dyck, has written in the combox about the term, "papolatry" and more. It is a comment which I am going to publish because it is a salient and profound assessment of the current situation.I thank Mr. Van Dyck for his wisdom.

I do not
use the term "papolatry" because it was conceived in Protestantism.
Besides, the sycophants of Pope Francis are not actually adoring him as a god,
but irrationally extending pontifical infallibility beyond the criteria posed
by His Divine Majesty. It has been the typical modus operandi of the subversive
elements within the Church whenever they had the Pope under their sway. When
the Pope contradicted their agenda, however, this 'extended papal
infallibility' of theirs disappeared like snow before the sun. Very
'convenient' for them.

There is
some kind of confusion of terminologies going on throughout the internet. I see
words like "ultramontanism" and "clericalism" employed to
describe the tyrannical behaviour of the present Pope of Rome and his yes-men,
while these words were originally used as synonymous with Catholicism, and
specifically the teachings of the First Vatican Council. People must stop doing
this, because the enemy of "ultramontanism" and
"clericalism" is sitting right there upon the august Apostolical See,
abusing his authority to push forth his ecclesiastical hippie revolution.

I am
convinced that God has permitted Pope Francis to be unleashed on the Church so
that the Ratzingerian paradigm of equilibrium between so-called 'conservatives'
and 'progressives would be shattered irrevocably. I remember well how stagnant
this situation was in the days of Benedict XVI as Pope, and how the
Ratzingerians insisted on the impossible pretense that the errors of Paul VI
were not inherently erroneous, and that the texts could be reconciled with the
Apostolic Tradition. They would even refuse the Roman Mass to those who were
unwilling to burn this grain of incense to 'Mother Synthesis' on the altars of
Hegel. Pope Francis, since his election, has been painfully embarrassing them
to the point where those who continue to write seriously about the Ratzingerian
"Hermeneutics of Continuity", read as if their articles are pieces of
intended satire.

Let the
Princes of the Church recognise the divine visitation, and attack the problems
within the Church at their root; the invisible coup d'état wrought by
Judeo-Masonry during the Second Vatican Council. Let them finally admit that
"Dignitatis Humanae", "Nostra Aetate" and "Amoris
Laetitia" must be condemned as objectively saturated with the depraved
spirit of the maçonnerie, instead of continuing to insist that they be
"read in the light of Tradition", which is impossible. When one
shines the light of Tradition upon them, hideous devils are seen, not
continuity. Francis is but the bitter fruit of a bitter tree.

16 comments:

There aren't many Catholics today able to appreciate the unintended satire in the writings of Bergoglio's supporters - regardless of the level in Church hierarchy. Mr. Benjamin Van Dyck speaks a language of the past, no longer understood by the degenerate, irrational, uneducated, demoralised mob our society has been engineered to devolve into.

All the wealth of his knowledge and depth of his understanding get lost even on the so called elites of today. It is as though he is speaking a foreign language. There is no intellectual discipline, no appreciation for virtue - not even in Catholic universities.

Before things get better, we will see a collapse of all aspects of our society's life. The destruction of the Church is what they believe a necessary step in the creation of the promised new world order on the ashes of the old oppressive patriarchy. We also need to see the legalisation of paedophilia and all other forms of sexual degeneracy, a rejection of family known today as traditional family. As long as there is a visible remnant of faith and sanity in the Church, it will be construed as an obstacle, the reason for the delay in the establishment of an equitable world, a humanity living in harmony with each other and with nature. Only when the true Church is completely gone - criminalised, will people be able to slowly (or perhaps quickly, if war and hunger strike) see that with God they have gotten rid of all hope and of salvation, of all goodness, truth and order, necessary for meaning, for life.

As it stands today, our elites and the fruit of their education, including Jorge Maria Bergoglio, believe to have a solution, and they will destroy all who dare to differ.

All we need is love, ram-ta-ta-ta-tam. I believe in love.

What, you're against love? Against unity? Oh, you want to define the terms of the discussion before we debate the issues? Don't you know that definitions and rules divide and oppress us? All is fluid, you silly, silly man with little sophistication...

The commentator ruins his otherwise helpful remarks by his claim about 'Judaeo-Masonry" being behind Vatican II. We know who was behind Vatican II as that council was exhaustively documented. They were heretical Catholics from France, Germany, Holland and Italy, with help from Americans and some other nationalities. the American bishops who pushed for religious liberty were largely of Irish extraction; there may have been a few Freemasons among them, but there were not any Jews. This stuff about 'Judae-Freemasonry' is just a way for Catholics to avoid responsibility for their own predicament and indulge in sordid bigotry against Jews.

The ONLY way the crisis in the Church will end is when 1) the Holy Father reveals the Third Secret of Fatima (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady which follow: "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved..." and 2) the Holy Father orders and makes in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

I disagree that "Dignitatis Humanae", "Nostra Aetate" and to a lesser extent "Amoris Laetitia" cannot be read in light of Tradition. They most certainly can. The "Hermeneutic of Continuity" is also a core principle of Catholic Doctrine and it is what distinguishes Protestants and Catholics (i.e. the Vincentian Canon).

But that's not the point. The weakness of explaining away ambiguity via the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" is that it places the burden of the magesterium on the individual (i.e. the Protestant Principle). The first version of the Nicene Creed was ambiguious enough to allowed for a version of Arianism and Nestorianism. The Church Fathers could have just said there would be no problem if people just followed the "Hermeneutic of Continuity", but that would be a cop-out (or a Copt-out as the case may be). The Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed closed those loop-holes.

The proper use of the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" is not as a patch up after the fact, it is a restraint before the fact so that no priest, bishop, or Pope attempts to overstep his authority in changing the mass, or doctrine, or pastoral practice. For instance, a Pope should be able to take the very strict canon law from the 4th century and adapt it to today since pastoral practice is part of Tradition. Some of the canons seem odd (e.g. priests cannot attend wedding receptions), but upon digging the reasons for those canons, their purpose still remain true today (wedding receptions tended to have the reputation of bachelor stag parties today, so priests must not place themselves in such compromising gatherings) .

John L said... The commentator ruins his otherwise helpful remarks by his claim about 'Judaeo-Masonry" being behind Vatican II. We know who was behind Vatican II as that council was exhaustively documented.

John, you are correct, the Americans, Canadians, Irish and the Low Countries undermined the Council, but do not discount the work of certain Jewish lobbies.

I have a PDF which I hope to convert for posting in a series of interventions from 1959 to John XXIII about the Church's liturgy demanding changes to the Mass, the Divine Office, Hymnody, Scripture readings. It is shocking to read it and see how it was applied.

I do not deny that there is a genuine "hermeneutics of continuity", but it is not applicable to texts that objectively contradict that with which one wants to reconcile it. Documents like "Dignitatis Humanae" have the unmistakable stench of maçonnerie, and whoever has done some study on the false philosophies of those sects will know that I speak the truth. Ratzinger himself, when still a cardinal, called "Dignitatis Humanae" a counter-syllabus. It seems to show that he was aware of the constant pre-conciliar teachings on the subject, and that this new document diametrically contradicted them. I am not sure how familiar American Catholics are with the centuries old war between the Church and the State, but for those who are not, it must be mentioned that the subject of religious liberty, with which "Dignitatis Humanae" dealt, was one of the main matters of contention in that war, and the way in which the mentioned document approaches the subject reads as if it came right out of the mouth of a nineteenth century Jacobin. To deny this is to draw the words out of their natural context, and in that way words use their very purpose.

John L.,

Oh, the judeo-maçonnerie was most certainly behind the 'consecration' of Delamennaisian liberalo-catholicism during the reign of Paul VI. I can only encourage you to become familiar with the French counter-revolutionary writers, if you can. Monseigneur Henri Delassus even said that they were behind the Protestant revolt itself, pointing to the Charte de Cologne as proof; a document which was conserved in the main masonic lodge of Amsterdam. It may be wondered whether Pope Bergoglio himself is not of Jewish descent, because his family originates from Alessandria, Italy, which even on Wikipedia is known for its historical Jewish presence. I do not pretend to know whether he is or not, of course, but seeing the trail of destruction wrought by his pontificate of now four years, it is surely lawful for us to ask. Remember that Antipope Anacletus II was a Jew, a fact that Saint Bernard of Clairvaux mentioned in his resistance to the usurper. I do not mean to imply that Francis is an antipope, but it does show the subversive urges of the Jews already in the Middle Ages. Anacletus' brother was involved in a plot to overthrow the Papal Monarchy and to erect a Roman Republic (Commune of Rome). Sound familiar? The bloodied Garibaldian sword of the Italian Carbonarists will give you the answer. Pomponius Laetus from Renaissance times also plotted to replace the temporal Crown of the Roman Pontiff with a Roman Republic, and he was called "pontifex maximus" by his Neo-Pagan adherents, in the same way as is done today in the secret sects towards their elected leader. In case you deny that the secret sects are led by Jews, I can only repeat my advise for you to become familiar with the research of serious ecclesiastical writers on the subject; for example Monseigneur Ernest Jouin, who even purchased a masonic library for the sake of his research. Men such as he were no anti-semites, but it cannot be denied that the Jews are the archenemies of the Catholic Church, which she herself has always known and which was already apparent in the days of the Blessed Apostles, as is shown in the Acts of the Apostles.

Jewish hatred for Christianity in select (not all circles) is well documented. We have Jews in the media and Israeli press openly bragging about this hate and their deliberate plan to destroy the despised Christian morality via perception management, among others - by our great story teller, the Hollywood, over-represented by Jews. But there are many honest Jews, of course, who had nothing to do with it. Is there a point, at which conspirators to commit hostile acts against a group, could be held somewhat responsible? Would a conspiracy to bomb a building make one culpable? If so, a conspiracy by Judeo-Masonry to destroy the Church gradually from within is not entirely the all-too corrupt victims' fault.

Roncalli and Montini, (AKA John XXIII and Paul VI,) joined the same masonic lodge on the same day. Montini wore the ephod - the symbol of the High Priest of the Jews - see photos and statue. Bergoglio wears the satanic pallium of the Patriarch of the World, member of the Third Luciferian Trinity.

Saint Paul encountered the Lord on the road to Damascus, was converted and commissioned to convert the Gentiles; Padre Pio encountered the Lord in a vision, was instructed to send Fr. Luigi Villa to Pope Pius XII, who commissioned him to ferret out judeo-masons in the Church.Father Villa has unveiled, exposed, reported and explained the origin; the genesis; the strategy and the goals of the judeo-masonic, New World Order Church of Man. How is it possible for any Catholic, who has read Fr. Luigi's report, not to understand, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what is going on, or where the Truth lies? Only the obdurate; the willfully blind; those without eyes to see, or ears to hear; those with hardened hearts, or ulterior motives could fail to discern the Truth about the conciliar popes, VII and the NWO church.

Read the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. See Bella Dodd's address to Congress on utube.

Marc Chagall's blasphemous painting, "The White Crucifixion", which depicts Jesus the Christ not as the messiah but instead as Jesus 'Hasidic' Christ is bergoglio's favourite painting."The Holocaust is a Christian Issue" by Richard A. Cohen ... gives the reader a peak into the psyche of an alchemist who is in the process of transforming his most hated enemy's religion into a golem to serve Talmudic Judaism. Below is an excerpt from this paper on the artist Marc Chagall and his work the White Crucifixion..."See: http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.co.za/2014/06/addendum-to-white-crucifixion.html

"Why Does Pope Francis Promote the Hasidic Painting, White Crucifixion?":White Crucifixion is a bolshevik ideological representation of Jesus. It has nothing to do with the real Jesus or Gospel. It depicts a Hasidic "Jesus" who was crucified solely 'because he was a Jew,' just as it is alleged that 'Jews' are always persecuted, for no other reason than that 'they are Jews,' in other words, "Esau hates Jacob," the fundamental tenet of the protection racket of rabbinic Judaism. Chagall may have physically left the ghetto, but he was still preaching the message of the ghetto in his art. This is Chabad Lubavitch Hasidism par excellence. I believe this is why Pope Francis promotes this image, because it empowers the rabbinic racket by instilling fear in 'Jews' and shame in non-'Jews.'" ( Maurice Pinay.)

Applying exact terminology and using words that don't deny Catholic teaching (all the more so when they come from non-Catholic sources) are a welcome addition to anything. Thanks, Benjamin for that and the other word, parocholatria.

The Bergoglian Heresies

click for link

Rosicagate

Click above for link

St. Pius X

"...the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. [...] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists."